GM-13 SOH Manager position; he was considered for and denied the promotion; and the position was filled by a significantly younger woman.
Defendant has articulated several legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for Plaintiff's nonselection. The record shows that the selecting official evaluated each candidate for the position at issue in light of the criteria set forth above. The official chose the selectee for the position because he felt that she was particularly well suited for it, having had experience in performing inspections at federal agencies and having presented herself well during the interview. Plaintiff's assertion that the Court should discredit the selecting official's testimony is without merit. Plaintiff has not provided any corroborating evidence to support his allegation that the official deliberately destroyed or misplaced his notes to impede this litigation.
Viewing the matter in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and [defendant] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Plaintiff has made no showing that Defendant's reasons for Plaintiff's nonselection are a pretext for unlawful discrimination. Indeed, he provides no support through affidavit or other documentary evidence to support his contention that he was subject to age or gender discrimination. Accordingly, the Court finds that summary judgment is appropriate.
This case shows once again the need to adjust our anti-discrimination laws. The evidence needed to make a prima facie case is much too low. It seems that almost anyone not selected for a job can maintain a court action. It is for this reason that the federal courts are flooded with employment cases. We are becoming personnel czars of virtually every one of this nation's public and private institutions. The drafters of the original legislation could never have intended the resulting consequences from what they deemed to be necessary, progressive legislation. It is obvious that amendatory legislation is required.
What is needed is a better screening mechanism as a pre-requisite for gaining access to this nation's federal court system. If an appropriate screening mechanism cannot be devised, then at a minimum a new Article 1 court should be created to hear this flood of cases. The point is some change is urgently needed.
Defendant's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's Title VII and ADEA claims is granted. An appropriate order follows this opinion.
United States District Court
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff's opposition thereto. For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary judgment be GRANTED ; and it is further
ORDERED that this action be DISMISSED.
United States District Judge